Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015, Continued - 3

CAUSES AND OUTCOMES OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

IN BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKETS RELATIONSHIP
MARKETING IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CEMENT
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Phineas Mbango*

Abstract

Close relationships between cement manufacturers and their customers in business-to-business

markets are becoming a necessity in today’s competitive markets. The literature search reveals that,
three constructs of relationship marketing (trust, commitment and satisfaction) are the most studied
and well known. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by adding two constructs (supplier
competencies and communication) as vital causes to customer satisfaction and the outcome being
customer loyalty and cooperation. The study produced a framework of dimensions of relationship
marketing in the South African Cement Industry and its hoped will help marketing managers in the
industry and related sectors in coming up with relationship marketing strategies that can go a long way
in helping them retain, attract, satisfy, and achieve long-term profitable relationships for both the
supplier and the customer. A judgemental sample of major cement customers (362) throughout South
Africa’s nine provinces were contacted using face-to-face interview technique with self-administered
questionnaires. The results support the conceptual model presented; supplier competencies, trust,
commitment and communication have a positive association with satisfaction; and satisfaction, in
turn, relates positively to all the two outcomes of cooperation and loyalty. It is recommended that a
cement manufacturer must invest in strategies that enhance trust, communication, commitment and
supplier competencies in order to satisfy its customers who will in turn contribute to customer
cooperation and loyalty.

Key Words: Satisfaction, Trust, Commitment, Supplier Competencies, Cooperation, Loyalty,

Relationship Marketing, South African Cement Manufacturing Industry

* Department of Marketing Management, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

1. Introduction constructs of relationship marketing (Morgan and

According to (Svensson et al., 2010:1), “Close
working relationships between buyers and suppliers
in business markets are becoming more and more
essential to achieving business success”. This view is
supported by Anderson and Narus 1990; Ganesan
1994; Geyskens, Steenkamp, and Kumar 1999;
Morgan and Hunt 1994 who state that strong
relationships in business-to-business markets ensures
stability to both suppliers and buyers.
The three most studied dimensions of
relationship marketing in literature are trust,
commitment and satisfaction (Morgan and Hunt
1994; Svensson et al., 2010; and Barry et al., 2008)
and there is no agreement on “how satisfaction fits in
a nomologigal network with trust and commitment
remains an issue in need of resolution”, Svensson et
al., 2010:1). In addition to these differences, there
seems to be evidence from literature of a lack of
specific constructs of relationship marketing in
business-to-business markets to specific industries.
Trust and commitment are seen as the most important
Hunt 1994; Barry et al., 2008; Caceres and
Paparoidamis 2007; Bansal 2007).
There is lack of consensus about the position of
satisfaction in relationship marketing models and no
agreed constructs that make up the relationship
marketing models in different industries as shown by
the findings of Papassapa and Miller 2007; Rayruen
and Miller 2007; Skermeas and Robson 2008; Barry
et al., 2008; Palmatier et al., 2006; Ulaga and Eggert
2006, in which satisfaction, trust and commitment are
all simply put as dimensions of higher order. This
supported with by the research outcomes on
Relationship Marketing (RM) by Theron &
Terblanche (2009), Athanasopoulou, (2009),
Gilaninia et al., (2011), Gounaris, (2005), and
Gummesson, (1994) among others as outlined above,
who argue that despite the existence of Relationship
Marketing as first coined by Berry (1983), there exist
no agreement on uniform dimensions/variables that
constitute Relationship Marketing management.
This article aims to provide some insight into
the position of satisfaction and determine what other

391
 Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015, Continued - 3
constructs apart from trust and commitment can cause
a customer to be satisfied and what outcomes of
satisfaction specifically for the cement industry
customers. Therefore, the researcher will attempt to
add more constructs of relationship marketing to the
existing dimensions mostly studied. The researcher
added supplier competencies and communication as
other causes of satisfaction and the outcomes being
loyalty and cooperation.
The cement industry in South Africa was chosen
for the study because of the role it plays. According
to Rossouw (2015: Online), “The cement industry
adds significant value to South Africa and its people.
The value received by cement employees represented
69% of the value created. This is a significant
contribution. According to Stats SA, more than 1.8
million people are employed by the cement industry.
The state received 19% of value created in the form
of direct taxes. The reality is that the state receives
significantly more if one takes into account the tax on
employee income deducted from the employees’
salaries and net indirect taxes like value added tax”.
“With South Africa’s massive unemployment
rate (25%), mostly unskilled labour, the construction
industry is seen as the sector which can provide a
solution as it a labour intensive sector”, Olivier
(2015: Online). He goes further to say, “While
inadequate infrastructure maybe the single biggest
threat to Africa’s long-term growth, at the same time
it also represents a significant opportunity for
investors in cement industry to finance infrastructure
such as the construction of ports, power stations and
housing projects”. “Therefore the cement industry
remains a key sector, serving all sectors of the South
African economy. It has a strategic role to fulfil if the
country is to develop and grow, as envisaged in the
National Development Plan. Analysts believe that if
government is to make inroads into solving the
unemployment crisis, the housing backlog, a
proactive relationship with the cement industry needs
to be developed”, Gauteng Development Agency
(2015: Online).
2. Literature review, conceptual model,
hypotheses and objectives of the
study
“Relationship marketing as a management concept is
important for acquiring sustainable profitability and
as a means of protecting an organisation from the
effects of competition. It has been proven that, those
organisations that embrace relationship marketing,
are in a better position to lower their marketing costs
and be in a position to achieve their long term goals”,
Theron & Terblanche (2009:384). Athanasopoulou,
(2009:583), states that, “researchers have concluded
that it is five times more expensive to acquire new
customers than to keep existing ones”. Organisations
thus strive to develop long-term relationships with
their customers in order to build customer loyalty and
increase profitability.
This paper supports the position of satisfaction
as mediator between trust and commitment as
supported by Svensson et al., (2010:2). To add value,
the researcher has added two more constructs i.e.
communication and supplier competencies, Goffin et
al., 2005. Therefore in this study satisfaction is seen
as a mediator between trust, commitment, supplier
competencies and communication with important
outcomes such as loyalty/or continuity and
cooperation. The reasons for this as given by
Svensson et al., (2010:2) are as follows; “First, some
studies show that trust and/or commitment appear to
be antecedents or precursors to satisfaction, secondly,
satisfaction may have a stronger association with
certain outcomes in comparison to trust and thirdly,
satisfaction may be the strongest component of
relationship quality”. In support of these findings,
Skarmeas et al., (2008:25) state, “Satisfaction is a
focal outcome of buyer-seller relationships that is
generally unlikely to develop in the absence of trust
and commitment”. In this study, the researcher have
added two more (supplier competencies and
communication) as stated by Goffin et al.,
(2005:203). The above three reasons suggest that
satisfaction may serve as a more proximal cause of
important outcomes than trust or commitment.
Therefore this study positions satisfaction as a
mediator between trust, commitment, supplier
competencies and communication with important
outcomes of loyalty/or continuity and cooperation.
In support of the inclusion of supplier
competencies and communication in the researcher’s
conceptual framework, Goffin et al., (2005:203) state
that, “Before partnership is possible, supplier’s
competencies are vital and once supplier
competencies exist then detailed communication is
required”. Communication is very vital in the
industry under study because of its technical nature.
Therefore product services need to be communicated
timeously and effectively. Also supplier
competencies become very important in this industry,
as quality and timeously delivery is of paramount
importance. The above reasons made the researcher
to include the two constructs in the study.
In support of the inclusion of the outcomes
(loyalty/or continuity and cooperation), Palmatier et
al., (2006) identified both continuity expectancy and
cooperation as two most important outcomes of key
relational mediators of satisfaction, trust and
commitment. They reported that these relational
mediators had the largest combined influence on the
dyadic outcome of cooperation and had a substantial
impact of continuity expectation. In support of this
augment, Ulaga and Eggert (2006) discovered that
satisfaction and commitment have a negative
association with propensity to leave a relationship. In
conclusion, the literature supports the inclusion of
continuity/or loyalty and cooperation as outcomes of
392
 Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015, Continued - 3
the dimensions of relationship marketing when
implemented correctly. Therefore the two outcomes
are included in this study’s conceptual framework.
Table 1. Theoretical Framework of RM in Cement Manufacturing Industry in South Africa
The following are the proposed hypotheses for
the study:
H1: Supplier competencies have a positive
association with satisfaction
H2: Trust has a positive association with
satisfaction.
H3 Commitment has a positive association with
satisfaction.
H4 Communication has a positive association
with satisfaction.
H5 Satisfaction has a positive association with
cooperation.
H6 Satisfaction has a positive association with
loyalty.
The following are the objectives of the study:
 To determine if supplier competencies have an
association with satisfaction;
 To determine if trust has an association with
satisfaction;
 To determine if commitment is associated with
satisfaction;
 To determine if communication has an
association with satisfaction;
Based on the above literature, below is the
proposed conceptual framework for the study:
 To determine if satisfaction has an association
with cooperation;
 To determine if satisfaction has an association
with loyalty.
3. Research Method
This article adopted a survey research design in order
to determine the causes and outcomes of customer
satisfaction in the South African Cement
manufacturing industry. “The survey research method
requires that individuals answer the same
predetermined set of questions and that responses are
selected from a set of possible answers to be recorded
in a structured, precise manner”, Joseph et al.,
(2009:235). Saunders et al., (2007:177) state that
“surveys are usually conducted using questionnaires
which allow for the collection of standardised data
from a sizeable population in a highly economical
way and the survey strategy is perceived as
authoritative by people in general and is both
comparatively easy to explain and to understand”.
Therefore, they continue, “the survey strategy allows
393
 Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015, Continued - 3
you to collect quantitative data which you can analyse
quantitatively using descriptive and inferential
statistics and data collected using a survey strategy
can be used to suggest possible reasons for particular
relationships between variables and to produce
models of these relationships” (177). The personal
survey method (interview administered survey) was
chosen for this study to obtain information from
decision makers in the cement industry. As indicated
by Wilson (2012:131), “personal-interviewing
methods involve meeting the respondent face-to-face
and interviewing them using a paper based
questionnaire, a lap-top computer or an electronic
notepad”. The personal-interviewing was chosen
because it is more suitable for “business-to-business
or organisational research which requires interviews
with business executives” Burns & Bush (2010:280).
Non-probability sampling in the form of
judgemental sampling was used. Judgemental
sampling was chosen because it is the most suitable
sampling technique for business-to-business markets,
according to Wilson (2012:192). Also of particularly
importance is the fact that “a carefully chosen
judgemental sample may be better able to represent
the mix of potential respondents in a population than
even a probability sample as you can balance your
sample to be in keeping with known market
characteristics” Wilson, (2012:192).
The sample elements/respondents were major
customers of the three main cement manufacturing
firms in South Africa. A total of 362 respondents (in
all the nine Provinces) were targeted, making it a
large enough sample to be in a position to generalise
the results to the entire population. The judgemental
sampling method was chosen because, to reiterate, the
research was conducted with the major customers of
cement suppliers. A judgemental sampling design is
“used where the collection of specialised informed
inputs on the topic area researched is vital, and the
use of any other sampling design would not offer
opportunities to obtain the specialised information”
Sekaran and Bougie, (2013:259).
4. Data Collection Method
Research assistants were used to collect data using
structured, self-administered questionnaires. The
research assistants were to set appointments and sit
with the respondents while the respondents completed
the questionnaire. This was done in order to improve
the response rate. Questionnaires were placed in
envelopes and after completing them the respondents
would then place them back in the envelopes
provided and seal them. Another reason research
assistants were used is because of the nature of the
sample design and the characteristics of the
respondents, who are senior business people who are
difficult to get hold of and who have little free time or
are unlikely to complete questionnaires when left
alone to do it.
The assistants were trained on issues relating to
data collection, including how to approach
respondents and ethics in data collection. This
approach is supported by Sekaran and Bougie
(2013:120), who state that “interviewers have to be
thoroughly briefed about the research and trained in
how to start an interview, how to proceed with the
questions, how to motivate respondents to answer,
what to look for in the answers and how to close an
interview”. The training also helped the assistants to
familiarise themselves with the contents of the
questionnaire. Respondents were approached in their
places of work/offices.
Face-to-face interview technique with self-
administered questionnaires was chosen because,
according to Sekaran and Bougie (2013:124), this
tactic has the advantage that “the researcher can
clarify doubts, ensure that questions are properly
understood, they have the ability to rephrase the
questions, can establish and motivate respondents and
this approach usually yields high response rate. The
disadvantages may be that it takes time, costs more
when a wide geographical region is covered,
respondents may be concerned about confidentiality
of information given, interviewers need to be trained
and can introduce interviewer bias”. Despite these
disadvantages, the face-to-face interview was chosen
as it provides a higher response rate than other
methods of interviewing.
5. Findings and Discussion
5.1 Reliabilities and Validity of
Measurement Scales used in the Study
Before subjecting the constructs to correlations,
firstly the reliabilities of the scales were carried out
using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient measurement.
Reliability “is the degree to which the observed
variable measures the ‘true’ value and is ‘error’ free”,
Hair et al., (2006:8).
The validity of a scale refers to the degree to
which it measures what it is supposed to measure,
Pallant (2007:7). The following activities were
performed to ensure validity:
 The questionnaire was directly aligned by
the research objectives
 Feedback from the pilot study was used to
make the necessary adjustments to the final
questionnaire
 A large sample was used to improve the
accuracy of the results
The closer the values are to 1, the greater the
reliability of the scale. All the Cronbach’s Alpha of
the scales considered in this study indicates a good
reliability (>.7).
394
 Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015, Continued - 3

Table 2. Descriptive statistics

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean of the computed Std. Deviation Mean Std Deviation
constructs (computed) on a scale of 7 on a scale of 7
Competency_factor 356 24.55 3.521 6.14 0.88
Trust_factor 356 19.43 2.467 6.48 0.82
Commitment_factor 352 18.80 2.568 6.27 0.86
Communication_factor 355 19.13 2.531 6.38 0.84
Satisfaction_factor 354 25.33 3.222 6.33 0.81
Cooperation_factor 352 37.68 7.025 6.28 1.17
Loyalty_factor 353 18.71 2.669 6.24 0.89
Valid N (listwise) 331

All the means on table 2 are around 6, meaning
that in general the sample agrees with all the items of
various construct involved in the study. All the
Standard deviation which are less than 1 indicates
that the opinions about the items of the various
constructs are not significantly different across the
sample.
5.2 Correlation among constructs
According to Hair et al., (2006:171), “Correlation
coefficient (r) indicates the strength of association
between any two metric variables. The sign (+ or -)
indicates the direction of the relationship. The value
range from +1 to -1, with +1 indicating a perfect
positive relationship, 0 indicating no relationship, and
-1 indicating a perfect negative or reverse relationship
( as one variable grows larger, the other variable
grows smaller)”.

Table 3. Correlation among constructs

Correlations
Compe- Trust_ Commit- Communi- Satisfac- Coopera- Loyalty_factor
tencies_f factor ment_factor cation_factor tion_factor tion_factor
actor
Competencies_factor Pearson
1 .747** .572** .825** .580** .529** .551**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 362 362 362 362 362 362 362
Trust_factor Pearson
.747** 1 .507** .751** .640** .553** .595**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 362 362 362 362 362 362 362
Commitment_factor Pearson
.572** .507** 1 .574** .388** .348** .369**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 362 362 362 362 362 362 362
Communication_factor Pearson
.825** .751** .574** 1 .680** .622** .546**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 362 362 362 362 362 362 362
Satisfaction_factor Pearson
.580** .640** .388** .680** 1 .813** .643**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 362 362 362 362 362 362 362
Cooperation_factor Pearson
.529** .553** .348** .622** .813** 1 .748**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 362 362 362 362 362 362 362
Loyalty_factor Pearson
.551** .595** .369** .546** .643** .748** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 362 362 362 362 362 362 362

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

395
 Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015, Continued - 3

Table 4. Below summarises the findings and interpretation of table 3 on correlations among constructs

Factor
Construct Finding
Loading
There is a significant association between competencies factor and
.747
trust factor
There is a moderate association between competencies factor and
.572
commitment factor
There is a perfect positive association between competencies factor
.852
and communication factor
Competencies Factor
There is a moderate association between competencies factor and
.580
satisfaction factor
There is a moderate association between competencies factor and
.529
cooperation factor
There is a moderate association between competencies factor and
.551
loyalty
There is a moderate association between trust factor and commitment
.507
factor
There is a significant association between trust factor and
.751
communication factor
Trust Factor There is a strong association between trust factor and satisfaction
.640
factor
There is a strong association between trust factor and cooperation
.553
factor
There is a strong association between trust factor and Loyalty factor .595
There is a moderate association between commitment factor and
.574
communication factor
There is a moderate association between commitment factor and
.388
satisfaction factor
Commitment Factor
There is a moderate association between commitment factor and
.348
cooperation factor
There is a moderate association between commitment factor and
.369
loyalty factor
There is a significant association between communication factor and
.680
satisfaction factor
Communication There is a strong association between communication factor and
.622
Factor cooperation factor
There is a moderate association between communication factor and
.546
loyalty factor
There is a perfect positive association between satisfaction factor and
.813
Satisfaction Factor cooperation factor
There is a strong association between satisfaction factor and loyalty .643
There is a significant association between cooperation factor and
Cooperation Factor .748
loyalty factor

Interpretation of findings on variable also grows positively of .57 unit of

correlations using the structural model
 Correlation between Competencies and Trust is
equal to .75; which means that when one of
these two variables grow positively of one unit
of standard deviation, the other variable also
grows positively of .75 unit of standard
deviation.
 Correlation between Competencies and
commitment is equal to .57; which means that
when one of these two variables grow positively
of one unit of standard deviation, the other
standard deviation.
 Correlation between Competencies and
communication is equal to .83; which means
that when one of these two variables grow
positively of one unit of standard deviation, the
other variable also grows positively of .83 unit
of standard deviation.
 Correlation between Trust and commitment is
equal to .51; which means that when one of
these two variables grow positively of one unit
of standard deviation, the other variable also

396
 Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015, Continued - 3
grows positively of .51 unit of standard
deviation.
 Correlation between Trust and communication
is equal to .75; which means that when one of
these two variables grow positively of one unit
of standard deviation, the other variable also
grows positively of .75 unit of standard
deviation.
 Correlation between Commitment and
communication is equal to .57; which means
that when one of these two variables grow
positively of one unit of standard deviation, the
other variable also grows positively of .57 unit
of standard deviation.
 Correlation between Competencies and Trust is
equal to .75; which means that when one of
these two variables grow positively of one unit
of standard deviation, the other variable also
grows positively of .75 unit of standard
deviation.
 Correlation between Competencies and Trust is
equal to .75; which means that when one of
these two variables grow positively of one unit
of standard deviation, the other variable also
grows positively of .75 unit of standard
deviation.
5.3 Discussion of the empirical results.
In this study, trust has the strongest positive
association with all the variables. This is consistent
with most of the research in relationship marketing.
Trust is mostly widely accepted concept in
relationship marketing (Svensson et al., 2010;
Skarmeas et al., (2008); Skarmeas and Robson
(2008); Morgan and Hunt (1994); Dwyer et al.,
(1987). Trust according to Wilson (1995:337), “is a
fundamental relationship model building block and as
such is included in most relationship models”. “In a
business-to-business relationship, (as in the case of
this study), the customer will attempt to reduce its
perceived risk by selecting a supplier seen as capable
of performing reliably (credibility) and demonstrate
its interest in the buyer’s well-being (benevolence)”,
Eggert and Ulaga (2004:315). In this industry,
customers trust a cement supplier if there is constant,
timely and regular communication, if the supplier
demonstrate competence in the products they offer, if
they are satisfied with the supplier and if they
cooperate with the supplier. Therefore in the cement
industry, trust is one of the most important dimension
of relationship marketing.
Communication has a very strong association
with satisfaction, cooperation, trust, loyalty and
competencies because, it plays a vital role as
according to Gilaninia et al., (2011:795),
“Communication in relationship marketing means
keeping in touch with valued customers, providing
timely and trustworthy information on service and
service changes, and communicating proactively if a
delivery problem occurs”.
Satisfaction has a significant association with
trust, cooperation and communication. Cooperation
has the strong association with loyalty. Loyal
customers are likely to cooperate with suppliers.
Competencies have strong association with trust and a
moderate association with commitment, satisfaction,
cooperation and loyalty.
All the constructs studied in this paper, are
correlated. Therefore all the hypotheses of this study
are accepted and the conceptual framework as
presented in table 1 is adopted as the model of
relationship marketing in the South African cement
industry in South Africa.
6. Conclusions
The outcomes of this study indicate that satisfaction
plays a central role in relationship building in the
South African Cement Industry. Customer
satisfaction has the strongest influence on customer
cooperation and loyalty. Thus making customer
satisfaction the most important finding as customer
satisfaction plays a pivotal role in relationship
marketing in the cement industry in South Africa as it
leads to important outcomes of cooperation and
loyalty. The two outcomes are crucial for business
success in terms of repeat purchase, referrals (word-
of-mouth marketing), retention and long-term
profitability.
Supplier competencies, Trust, Commitment and
communication have been found to have a
significance influence on satisfaction and in turn,
satisfaction have significance influence on
cooperation and loyalty in the South African Cement
Industry
Thus, overall, to maintain customer loyalty and
cooperation to a cement supplier, a cement supplier
may enhance all five aspects of relationship
marketing dimensions which are supplier
competencies, trust, commitment, communication and
satisfaction. As a result the empirical results suggest a
major paradigm shift from production/sales
orientation towards relationship marketing
orientation.
It is recommended that a manufacturer of
cement products must predominantly develop
strategies and procedures that ensures that products or
services offered matches or exceeds customer
expectations. This means a cement manufacturer has
to invest a lot of resources in satisfying customer
needs in order to meet organisational goals and
objectives. Satisfaction leads to cooperation and
loyalty which are important for a supplier to have a
competitive advantage. Loyal customers are more
profitable and are likely to stay with the supplier for
long. These spread good word of mouth about the
organisation. Satisfaction leads to long-term
relationships commitment and decreased propensity
397
 Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015, Continued - 3
to terminate relationships. “Thus it is fundamental
that cement manufacturers must deliver a quality
service at all times to their customers, stressing not
just the core service but also the peripheral ones, and
striving to cover aspects related not only to the
technical quality but also to the functional quality”’
Alvarez et.al (2011:27).
It is recommended that, for a cement
manufacturer to be able to consolidate its position in
the market, retain customers and become more
profitable, it must be able to generate trust, have
effective communication strategies, must have
committed customers, must be competent and must
satisfy its customers. By doing this, a cement
manufacturer will be in a position to gain loyal
customers, customers willing to cooperate, customers
who are willing to remain in a relationship for a long
time and customers who are willing to spread positive
word of mouth, thus helping to improve the firm’s
reputation in the market.
Most studies in relationship marketing put trust,
commitment and satisfaction as the mostly commonly
cited dimensions of relationship marketing. This
study makes a theoretical contribution by adding
other dimensions (supplier competencies,
communication, cooperation and loyalty).
Although there are numerous studies which
examine the relationships between trust, commitment,
communication, satisfaction, cooperation and
continuity, there is no available evidence in literature
for an existence of an integrated model of the
relationships between these constructs as so far as it
relates to Relationship Marketing especially in the
cement industry. There exists evidence from literature
of an outcry for future studies to limit studies of
relationship marketing to specific industry. This study
contributes to theory and practice by closing that gap,
by providing a framework of dimensions of RM
specifically aimed at the cement industry specifically.
One of the limitations of the study is that, a
judgemental sample was used and the results may be
interpreted to only represent the population of those
like the respondents. Therefore this limits the
generalisation of the results to the entire South
African population industries.
The research was aimed at those organisations
that contribute 80% to the organisational profitability,
since relationship marketing is undertaken with key
customers. This leads to another limitation in that, the
study was undertaken in South Africa with major
cement customers. This limits the ability to generalise
the findings to other different industries in other
countries or of different cultures.
This study lays a foundation for further studies
to be carried out in similar industries operating under
similar environments. Further studies can be carried
out to expand the dimensions of RM. For this reason,
it is recommended that this study can be replicated to
other industries in South Africa and undertaken in
other industries in different countries with different
cultures.
This study gives an opportunity to conduct
future studies on other business-to-business
relationships among different countries and cultures.
A further study into smaller organisations may differ
from this but this study lays a foundation for further
studies.
References
1. Álvarez, L.S., Casielles, R.V. & Martín, A.M.D.
(2010). “Analysis of the role of complaint
management in the context of relationship
marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management,
27(1-2), 143-164.
2. Anderson, J.C. & Narus, J.A. (1990). “A model of
distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
relationships. Journal of Marketing”, 54(1), 42-58.
3. Athanasopoulou, P. (2009). “Relationship quality: a
critical literature review and research agenda.
European Journal of Marketing”, 43(5/6), 583-610.
4. Arnett, B.D. & Hunt, D.S. (2006), “The explanatory
foundations of relationship marketing theory”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol.21
No.2, pp. 72-87.
5. Berry, L.L. (1995), “Relationship Marketing of
Services – Growing Interest, Emerging
Perspectives”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 3 No.4, pp. 236-245.
6. Bush, F.R. & Burns, C.A. (2010), Marketing
Research (Sixth Edition), Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
7. Cooke, E.F. (1986), “What is Business and Industrial
Marketing?” The Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 1 No.1, pp. 9-17.
8. Davis, P.R. (2008), “A relationship approach to
construction supply chains”, Industrial Management
and Data Systems, Vol.108 No.3, pp. 310-327.
9. Gauteng Development Agency.
10. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.E.M., & Kumar, N.
(1999), “A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing
channel relationships”. Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol.36 No. 2, pp. 223-239.
11. Gilaninia, S., Mohammadi, A.A., Mousavian, J.S., &
Pournaserani, A. (2011).” Relationship Marketing: A
New Approach to Marketing in the Third
Millennium”. Australian Journal of Basic and
Applied Sciences, Vol.5 No.5, pp. 787-799.
12. Gounaris, S.P. (2005). “Trust and commitment
influences on customer retention: insights from
business-to-business services”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol.58 No.2, pp. 126-140.
13. Grönroos, C. (1996), “Relationship marketing:
strategic and tactical implications”. Management
Decision, Vol. 34 No.3, pp. 5-14.
14. Joseph F., Hair, J.R., Bush, R.P., & Ortinau, D.J.
(2009), Marketing Research in a digital information
environment (Fourth Edition), Boston: McGraw Hill.
15. Kotler, P. (1994). Marketing Management, Prentice
Hall, New Jersey.
16. Malhotra, N.K. (2010), Marketing Research: An
Applied Orientation (Sixth Edition), India: Pearson
Education.
17. Malhotra, N.K., Birks, F.D., & Wills, P. (2012),
Marketing Research: An applied Approach (Fourth
Edition), London: Pearson Education Ltd.
398
 Journal of Governance and Regulation / Volume 4, Issue 4, 2015, Continued - 3
18. Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The
commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing”, Vol. 58 No. 3 pp. 20-38.
19. Olivier, S. (2015: Online) Available from:
Communicate Blog (www.communicate.co.za).
20. Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewel, D., & Evans
K.R. (2006), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of
relationship marketing: a meta-analysis”. Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4 pp. 136-153.
21. Rossouw, (2015: Online) Available from:
www.pwc.co.za.
22. Rauyruen, P., & Miller K.E. (2007), “Relationship
quality as a predictor of b2b customer loyalty”.
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60, pp. 21-31.
23. Roberts-Lombard, M. (2009), “Customer retention
strategies implemented by fast-food outlets in the
Gauteng, Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal
provinces of South Africa: a focus on Something
Fishy, Nando’s and Steers”, African Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol.1 No.2, pp. 70-80.
24. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007),
Research methods for business students. London:
Pearson Professional Limited.
25. Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods
for Business (Sixth Edition), New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
26. Snyman, E. (2010). Industry Insight, South Africa
Online. Available from: www.worldcement.com
27. Southern Africa Cement Manufacturing Association
(2014).
28. Statistics South Africa (2015).
29. Svensson, G., Mysen, T., & Payan, J. (2010),
“Balancing the Sequential Logic of Quality
Constructs in Manufacturing-Supplier Relationships-
Cause and Outcome”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 63 No.11, pp. 1209-1214.
30. Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2004), “Relationship value
and relationship quality”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 3/4, pp. 311-327.
31. Van Vuuren, T., Roberts-Lombard, M., & Van
Tonder, E. (2013), “Customer satisfaction, trust and
commitment as predictors of customer loyalty within
an optometric practice environment”, Southern
African Business Review, Vol. 16 No.3, pp. 81-96.
32. Vargo, L.S. & Lusch, R. F. (2004), “Evolving to a
New Dominant Logic for Marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No.1, pp. 1-17.
33. Wilson, D.T. (1995), “An integrated Model of
Buyer-Seller Relationships”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 335-345.
34. Wilson, A. (2012), Marketing Research: An
Integrated Approach (Third Edition), Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.
399